CES is about technology of all kinds; while we're busy covering cameras, TVs, and CPUs, there's a huge number of products that fall outside our normal coverage. Austin-based startup TrackingPoint isn't typical Ars fare, but its use of technology to enable getting just the perfect shot was intriguing enough to get me to stop by and take a look at the company's products.

TrackingPoint makes "Precision Guided Firearms, or "PGFs," which are a series of three heavily customized hunting rifles, ranging from a .300 Winchester Magnum with a 22-inch barrel up to a .338 Lapua Magnum with 27-inch barrel, all fitted with advanced computerized scopes that look like something directly out of The Terminator. Indeed, the comparison to that movie is somewhat apt, because looking through the scope of a Precision Guided Firearm presents you with a collection of data points and numbers, all designed to get a bullet directly from point A to point B.

The view through the TrackingPoint's computerized optics.

TrackingPoint

The PGF isn't just a fancy scope on top of a rifle. All together, the PGF is made up of a firearm, a modified trigger mechanism with variable weighting, the computerized digital tracking scope, and hand-loaded match grade rounds (which you need to purchase from TrackingPoint). This is a little like selling both the razor and the razor blades, but the rounds must be manufactured to tight tolerances since precise guidance of a round to a target by the rifle's computer requires that the round perform within known boundaries.

Enlarge/ The TrackingPoint XS1, chambered in a .338 Lapua Magnum, with a 27-inch Krieger barrel and 300 grain match rounds.

TrackingPoint

The image displayed on the scope isn't a direct visual, but rather a video image taken through the scope's objective lens. The Linux-powered scope produces a display that looks something like the heads-up display you'd see sitting in the cockpit of a fighter jet, showing the weapon's compass orientation, cant, and incline. To shoot at something, you first "mark" it using a button near the trigger. Marking a target illuminates it with the tracking scope's built-in laser, and the target gains a pip in the scope's display. When a target is marked, the tracking scope takes into account the range of the target, the ambient temperature and humidity, the age of the barrel, and a whole boatload of other parameters. It quickly reorients the display so the crosshairs in the center accurately show where the round will go.

Image recognition routines keep the pip stuck to the marked target in the scope's field of view, and at that point, you squeeze the trigger. This doesn't fire the weapon; rather, the reticle goes from blue to red, and while keeping the trigger held down, you position the reticle over the marked target's pip. As soon as they coincide, the rifle fires.

Enlarge/ Mark a target, squeeze the trigger, and line up the crosshairs to the target's pip.

TrackingPoint

TrackingPoint is quick to emphasize the rifle doesn't fire "by itself," but rather the trigger's pull force is dynamically raised to be very high until the reticle and pip coincide, at which point the pull force is reset to its default. In this way, the shooter is still in control of the rifle's firing, and at any point prior to firing you can release the trigger. In the mockups the company had on display for the press to experiment with, the action appeared to be the same—I pulled the trigger and lined up the dots and the blue plastic toy gun went click.

Having the round fire when the shot is lined up rather than in immediate response to a trigger pull eliminates a tremendous amount of uncertainty from the shot. Even the most experienced shooters can upset a weapon's aim when pulling the trigger, and overcoming the reflex to twitch or preemptively move against a weapon's recoil is very, very difficult. By allowing the computer to choose the precise moment to take the shot, accuracy is greatly enhanced.

Putting lead accurately on targets is only part of what TrackingPoint's PGF system does. The computerized tracking scope contains some amount of nonvolatile storage, and like an airplane's "black box," it's constantly recording the visual feed from the optics. It also contains a small Wi-Fi server, and TrackingPoint offers an iOS app that connects to the scope via an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network and streams the scope's display to the app, allowing someone with an iPad or iPhone to act as a spotter. TrackingPoint notes that for novice hunters, having the ability to duplicate the scope's picture onto an external display makes it a lot easier for an experienced spotter to give advice on how and when to shoot.

Enlarge/ The iPad app mirrors the scope's display, allowing a spotter to assist with shots.

TrackingPoint

There's a social media aspect, too—the scope's video recordings can be uploaded to video sharing sites like YouTube. Rather than bragging to buddies about that amazing 1000-yard shot you took at the range or out in the field last week, you can simply show them, complete with all the heads-up display data about conditions and range.

TrackingPoint had one actual rifle on display in the press room, along with several mock-ups equipped with iPhones in place of scopes. The iPhones were running a simulated version of the TrackingPoint scope software, letting demo users line up their shots on polygonal deer and hogs in a landscape much like popular hunting video games. It felt a bit like playing with an "easy mode" cheat turned on, though, as it was nearly impossible to miss, even at tremendous distances. TrackingPoint is considering selling the demo software as a standalone hunting app, though from my brief experience with it, there wasn't a whole lot of challenge to felling game once you had the mark-and-fire procedure worked out.

This might not make a compelling video game, but it certainly does make for an accurate weapon system. TrackingPoint says the "first shot success probability"—that is, a shooter's ability to successfully land a round on target in a single try—is drastically increased. The TrackingPoint representatives present brought this up when I commented on the necessity of buying (more expensive) ammunition directly from TrackingPoint rather than buying or loading one's own rounds. TrackingPoint contends the ability to be drastically more precise with aiming means fewer rounds have to be fired for the same effect, ultimately saving money.

I asked about potential military applications, since they are obvious, but TrackingPoint was quick to downplay involvement with the Department of Defense. The "connected shooter" goal of the PGF system in many ways lines up with the Army's limping, on-again-off-again Land Warrior program. However, the very nature of the government contract and procurement process ensures that any technology developed for military use must go through an incredibly lengthy and convoluted development process, meeting shifting and sometimes outdated design goals along the way. TrackingPoint said that its goal is to produce the technology first, and then find the market and applications once it actually had something ready to go—and this is what it has done.

The company is also keenly aware of the potential negative public perception right now around firearms and firearm manufactures, in the wake of recent mass-shooting events like the ones in Sandy Hook and Aurora. The three models of PGF are bolt-action hunting rifles, unwieldy for any kind of close-quarters work; the tracking system itself requires patience and care to line up and fire, and it doesn't appear at all to be the kind of thing a mass-shooter would employ. At this time, TrackingPoint indicated that it has no intention of producing a PGF system for anything other than bolt-action rifles.

Hunting is a controversial pastime, but it's an undeniably popular one, and TrackingPoint is dialed in very well at its target market. The price is relatively high—the rifles start at about $17,000 (a price which includes an iPad with the TrackingPoint app pre-configured and ready to go), but that isn't a huge premium over parting together one's own rifle and precision optics.

Wait, am I to understand that the computer fires the gun, not the individual?

No, they probably couldn't allow that due to ATF regulations. This was directly addressed in the article:

Quote:

TrackingPoint is quick to emphasize the rifle doesn't fire "by itself," but rather the trigger's pull force is dynamically raised to be very high until the reticle and pip coincide, at which point the pull force is reset to its default. In this way, the shooter is still in control of the rifle's firing, and at any point prior to firing you can release the trigger.

Wait, am I to understand that the computer fires the gun, not the individual?

No, they probably couldn't allow that due to ATF regulations. This was directly addressed in the article:

Quote:

TrackingPoint is quick to emphasize the rifle doesn't fire "by itself," but rather the trigger's pull force is dynamically raised to be very high until the reticle and pip coincide, at which point the pull force is reset to its default. In this way, the shooter is still in control of the rifle's firing, and at any point prior to firing you can release the trigger.

Yeah, that is the problem. If pulling the trigger isn't firing the weapon, the computer is. A fine distinction, but the ATF has nuked products over less.

If you can pull and release the trigger without firing, it seems to me the trigger isn't the actuator anymore.

I'm friends with several people in the local long-range shooting-competition communities, and they've actually shot the rifle at a previous event. Accounts are that it's not perfect (with edge cases that are probably of less interest to a non-gun-enthusiast audience) but generally does work.

I'm not sure it's likely to have too much application hunting things other than cardboard at this point, though, as moving targets remains a hard problem, especially given bullet-flight-times at the long ranges this is intended for.

While this is staggeringly expensive for the intended market (that kind of money could buy you a truck or two), it is quite cool.

It's reminiscent of the transition from bow and arrow to muskets. While an experienced sniper with a similarly expensive rifle can probably outperform this at range, this rifle would let joe schmoe take just about the same shot. The same way that English Longbowmen were more effective than early muskets, but required years of training to become proficient, whereas almost anybody can fire a musket.

While the US military may not buy these rifles in any quantity, you can bet that private contractors (AKA mercenaries) will be interested.

Wait, am I to understand that the computer fires the gun, not the individual?

No. The article actually went to a lot of trouble to clarify this point. If I understand correctly, the system is essentially a computer-controlled safety that remains engaged until the reticle is placed exactly on target, at which point the safety is disengaged and the pressure the shooter is exerting on the trigger fires the weapon.

The end result is that yes, the weapon only fires when the computer allows it to, but from a legal and moral standpoint, the (presumably human) shooter is the one that pulled the trigger.

Wait, am I to understand that the computer fires the gun, not the individual?

No, they probably couldn't allow that due to ATF regulations. This was directly addressed in the article:

Quote:

TrackingPoint is quick to emphasize the rifle doesn't fire "by itself," but rather the trigger's pull force is dynamically raised to be very high until the reticle and pip coincide, at which point the pull force is reset to its default. In this way, the shooter is still in control of the rifle's firing, and at any point prior to firing you can release the trigger.

Yeah, that is the problem. If pulling the trigger isn't firing the weapon, the computer is. A fine distinction, but the ATF has nuked products over less.

If you can pull and release the trigger without firing, it seems to me the trigger isn't the actuator anymore.

You can only pull the trigger partway according to the article, the computer puts the brakes on it right before it releases the hammer, then lets up once you have the shot lined up properly.

I'm curious how well the 'pip' tracks a target as it moves through foliage which obscures it partially; or if the animal changes it's presentation from side to head-on. Did they speak to that at all?

Computer recognition software has improved a lot over the past decade. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it could track most targets reasonably well, although I expect it to struggle (and fail) if the target is moving at high speed in heavily forested areas and moving erratically. But in that situation you shouldn't be taking the shot anyway because it's impossible to verify that the area behind the target is safe when you're trying to track a moving target like that. Taking the shot in situations like this is how other hunters get hit.

This is almost certain to see military applications. Couple this with some sort of thermal recognition system, and who needs marksmanship training any more?

Because if something can go wrong in the desert it will go wrong.

There will be plenty of teething troubles, no doubt, but in principle it's so manifestly a superior idea to having to, well, aim at a target, and the only real disadvantage is that it costs massive amounts of money. Which is really no obstacle at all, it seems.

Cool idea yet I understand even the shooting community will be divided over whether a shooter should be so assisted. Sort of how the driving community remains divided over true manual versus paddle shifting.

I'd love to play with it. I can barely see targets past 500 yards, much less put a steady hold and trigger pull on it. And yes, I am a crappy rifle shooter. When do we get the skeet version for my 12 ga?

I don't think killing animals for fun is good sport, I think hunting for meat is worthwhile. Improving accuracy means less chance of just wounding game, which is better for the hunter and the game. Some people will call it cheating, no doubt. I have friends who are competition target shooters, that is a sport where this technology would be cheating.

This technology is impressive and some unsteady hunters will probably love it, but I couldn't help imagine some sniper rampage with horrifying video of each shot.

I wouldn't say it's cheating as much as it's taking away the skill and the sense of reward.

Then again, I think all hunters are lame if they aren't using a bow and actively tracking their prey. Sitting in a tree all day while you wait for a deer to come nibble at the corn you left out isn't very sporting. Unless you need the food to live, it seems disrespectful to the sport of hunting to use a gun that does most of the work for you.

Cool idea yet I understand even the shooting community will be divided over whether a shooter should be so assisted. Sort of how the driving community remains divided over true manual versus paddle shifting.

I'd love to play with it. I can barely see targets past 500 yards, much less put a steady hold and trigger pull on it. And yes, I am a crappy rifle shooter. When do we get the skeet version for my 12 ga?

Isn't that expensive? There are plenty of 338 LM for less than $3000, throw in a $1000 scope, and even have a professional gunsmith tune it for you and your at $5000 total.

And that's usually the high end of what 98% of people hunt with.

I hunt with a Savage 110 30.06 ~ $500 and about a $150 scope... for about 1/25 the cost. The market for this is going to be pretty limited.

I'm having images flash before me involving a 3rd party marking targets for multiple shooters in the trenches who fire by holding their rifles up over the dirt mound, waving it around until it fires. NEXT TARGET AQUIRED!!!

It would be interesting if they could do enough image recognition to actually make sure you MISS when firing at a human or human-ish target (or, I guess, just not let the gun fire). After all, it's a hunting rifle, you'd never have a valid reason for firing it at a human target, right?

This is almost certain to see military applications. Couple this with some sort of thermal recognition system, and who needs marksmanship training any more?

Probably not. .mil snipers don't want anything that will crap out and leave them with a useless system in the field. Also, all this really does is put the ballistics computer into the scope. .mil snipers always work in sniper-spotter pairs, with the spotter using a handheld ballistics computer and feeding the sniper the adjustments he needs to make to hit the target. It's a much more reliable and redundant system.

What JGoat said. At least up in our neck of the (literal) woods, hunting for many people is less sport and more a real source of protein for the winter. People who purely want the challenge are free to not use it, or use a muzzleloader, or for that matter use a bow and arrow (which has its own hunting season). Those though who are actually doing it for the sake of wildlife control (regrettably rabid animals, particularly raccoons, are somewhat common) or food or both can probably use the most efficient tool they can get. The cost of this is probably too high in the near term of course for most, but those always come down.

JGoat wrote:

I don't think killing animals for fun is good sport, I think hunting for meat is worthwhile. Improving accuracy means less chance of just wounding game, which is better for the hunter and the game.

Yeah, making a clean shot can have a moral angle as well, it's not just a matter of pride or sport. I will also reemphasize that actual wildlife control is a real concern in some areas, and a weapon like this might be of significant use to the local ranger/wildlife control officer or equivalent.

At any rate from a technology perspective it's an interesting development and a testament to the continuing reach of electronics. I wouldn't be surprise to see ammo with limited self guidance at some point this decade either.

I can actually see this being a boon for disabled hunters, if they get someone that can mount the rifle for them in a tree stand, that would allow them to hunt from the same vantage points as the non-disabled hunters. Neat idea!

Lee Hutchinson / Lee is the Senior Reviews Editor at Ars and is responsible for the product news and reviews section. He also knows stuff about enterprise storage, security, and manned space flight. Lee is based in Houston, TX.